Monkey labor

[Mr Skeptic]

If it were possible to train monkeys or other primates to do boring labor like factory work, would you find this acceptable? What if they had to be genetically engineered, or specially bred to be smarter so they could do the work? Why aren't trained monkeys being used for labor today? There's some parallels to other animal issues, like food animals, and other animals already used for stuff like plowing, guiding blind people, companionship, etc.

[ecoli]

this would be akin to slavery, no?

 

OTOH... we don't ask horses if they want to be ridden, or dogs if they want to be dressed up and paraded around. Agriculture used to completely rely on animal labor.

[Realitycheck]

I think that there would be a potential communication problem. As in, it would be hard to enforce zero tolerance in terms of quality control and communicating details on occasion. Pulling a wagon is easy. All the horse has to do is walk and all the dog has to do is follow and obey simple commands, but it depends on how complicated the work is.

[CDarwin]

There are two levels here: A) Would it be practicable? and B) Would it be unethical?

 

A) Probably not. The robots would be much better, but B) Not necessarily. If you could make the tasks interesting enough and with sufficient incentives so that the monkeys will do them willingly, then they'd probably be better off than a lot of factory workers.We encourage primates to do tasks of various sorts all the time.

[Sisyphus]

I admit this is a dodge, but monkey laborers would be wildly impractical. Monkey craftsmanship is notoriously inconsistent - far more than humans, let alone machines. You would need a great deal of supervision, and monkeys are expensive to breed and train to begin with. Human or machine labor would be much more cost effective.

 

Yes, there have been domesticated labor animals for as long as there has been civilization, but those animals are more like tools than workers. You don't send an ox out in the field to plow by himself, or push a hound dog out the back door and tell him to come back with dinner.

[Pangloss]

Better just to eat them, like we do with all our hard-working bovine friends.

[DrDNA]

Never happen. It would take 3 or 4 humans to manage and clean up after just one damn dirty ape.

 

I believe that another potential issue with this might be an increase in disease transmission. We are genetically so close to our monkey cousins that viral species jumping could be inevitable if we increased the population density and our proximity to it....ie, SIV (Simean "AIDS")

[Pangloss]

Don't look for it, DrDNA, you may not like what you find. After all, some apes are more equal than others. It's a mad house, a mad house!

 

 

(DrDNA, would an ape make a human doll that TALKS?)

[iNow]

Oddly enough, there was an AMAZING show on NOVA tonight about apes. As of tomorrow (Wednesday, February 20), the entire show will be available for free at the following link:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/apegenius/program.html

 

 

This one's worth watching. It's called "Ape Genius" and it really illuminates the similarities and differences between humans and apes.

 

 

Sorry, Mr. Skeptic... I know an ape is not a monkey, but it holds a similar message which is pertinent to the discussion under way here.

[Severian]

Isn't that what we have poor people for? I thought we had lots of problems with high unemployment - why would we need monkeys?

[Mr Skeptic]

I admit this is a dodge, but monkey laborers would be wildly impractical. Monkey craftsmanship is notoriously inconsistent - far more than humans, let alone machines. You would need a great deal of supervision, and monkeys are expensive to breed and train to begin with. Human or machine labor would be much more cost effective.

 

But some types of factory work are extremely simple. Packaging is a major part of manufacturing, and there is little to screw up. I'm not very familiar with monkeys, but hiring humans is quite expensive. I don't know how hard it would be to train something like that, and I'd imagine their work would be lower quality.

 

That's also why I suggested using genetic engineering to make them smarter, which should also make this discussion more interesting. If they were able to be communicated with and teach each other, it would be much more profitable and ethically questionable. The benefit over machinery is that they should be more adaptable, won't jam, and won't need repairs.

 

---

Oh, and I just remembered that some monkeys are used for harvesting coconuts. I'd imagine they rather enjoy that kind of work. They have also been used to help the blind. And of course as test subjects, though that wouldn't count as work. So there is some precedent for using monkeys for work.

[CDarwin]

That's also why I suggested using genetic engineering to make them smarter, which should also make this discussion more interesting. If they were able to be communicated with and teach each other, it would be much more profitable and ethically questionable. The benefit over machinery is that they should be more adaptable, won't jam, and won't need repairs.

 

---

Oh, and I just remembered that some monkeys are used for harvesting coconuts. I'd imagine they rather enjoy that kind of work. They have also been used to help the blind. And of course as test subjects, though that wouldn't count as work. So there is some precedent for using monkeys for work.

 

Don't forget the organ-grinder capuchins.

 

Even with genetic engineering, I think the the same standard would apply. As long as the monkeys are doing the tasks willingly because they're interesting and they have ample incentives, then who's to say that's unethical? If that's so, than pretty much our entire lives are lived being subjected to the unethical machinations of the bourgeoisie state.

[John Cuthber]

Are we talking about monkeys, some of which are not that bright (however you measure that) or apes, some of which are possibly bright enough to have an opinion on the matter?

[CDarwin]

Are we talking about monkeys, some of which are not that bright (however you measure that) or apes, some of which are possibly bright enough to have an opinion on the matter?

 

Monkeys have some more going on that we like to give them credit for. Rhesus macaques have demonstrated the rudiments of 'theory of the mind,' baboons navigate extremely complex social environments, etc. A lot of the traditional IQ tests are "speciesist," if that's a valid concept, and apes, which think and act more like us, tend to score more highly on them unfairly.

 

I could definitely see a capuchin or even a macaque being trained to do the tasked required to box something, for example. The trick would be in keeping them interested for 8 hour shifts. A capuchin's not just going to sit there and do the same thing over and over again. If you wanted to genetically engineer something, it would probably have to be to encourage longer attention spans.

[Mr Skeptic]

Monkeys, apes, genetically engineered primates, I'm not partial. I guess I should have clarified that earlier.